memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:DarkHorizon/Archive 3
I noticed you removed some TAS info here and there as 'non-canon'. But MA *does* consider TAS to be canon. Or euhm.. I thought so. Browsing through the docs, it seems we haven't actually made that decision yet. Well.. ehm.. if you can just pause for a moment with deleting TAS stuff, I'll open up a topic on the Message Board to discuss it. Because I personally feel very strongly that TAS should be included. -- Harry 03:16, 27 Dec 2003 (PST) :That's fine. It's just with all the information floating around about canon, I was sticking to the letter. And, with hitting 'Random page' (which is what I was doing last night), I wasn't coming up with references all the time, just here and there. You can revert the changes I made, if you haven't already done so. -- DarkHorizon 12:33, 27 Dec 2003 (PST) ::Hum, I've received your message DarkHorizon... The Star Charts book from G. Mandel is one of my most important source book for Star Trek files. But should I consider everything writting in this book as non-canon ? I don't think thant G. Mandel has created all these informations ! And please excuse me for my grammar, but as you have certainly guess, english is not my mother-language... From user 81.51.248.76 ::: It holds a similar status to the technical manuals - many consider them to be near-canon, but they are mostly made up by the authors. So, no, Greg Mandel did not create all the data for the Star Charts, but a vast majority of it does not come from the televised episodes, which are the basis of canon, and therefore what goes into Memory Alpha. If it hasn't been said or referenced in an episode or movie, it isn't canon -- DarkHorizon 16:19, 4 Jan 2004 (PST) :::Just as a small reminder, discussions about canon, the Star Trek Star Charts or other things should probably take place on the discussion pages for these articles. I already started a discussion about your additions to the Terra Nova article, for example. :::Re:''Star Charts - Mandel did indeed invent much of the information in that book. That doesn't mean that it is bad, of course, just that this information is not canon. -- Cid Highwind 10:25, 4 Jan 2004 (PST) ---- Hey DarkHorizon, after some discussion between Harry and I, we've decided that it's getting to the time when we need to add some more sysops to the ranks at Memory Alpha. Based on your excellent and enthusiastic contributions so far, you've been chosen as one of them. Congratulations! There really isn't too much precedent to build on at this point, but I think you know the general purpose of a sysop at MA -- taking care of vandalism (which I noticed you did earlier today), handling protected pages, and other similar tasks. Also, as time goes on, I think that the sysops will have a somewhat larger say in policies that are made (or changed) at MA. One friendly word of advice, though -- don't let this promotion go to your head too much! :-) As I understand the system at Wikipedia (which we're trying to emulate), a sysop is more a trusted member with somewhat expanded powers rather than someone with specific authority (unlike, say, being a moderator on a message board). If you've got any questions, don't hesitate to contact me! -- Dan Carlson 14:27, 3 Feb 2004 (PST) :Thank you, Dan. I happily accept. -- DarkHorizon 16:00, 3 Feb 2004 (PST) Dark Horizon, Thanks for the welcome. It will take me a few days to get up to speed on everything you asked me to read. But I did go over what counts as cannon and what doesn't. My edit to the Sovereign was based on info provided to me by Rick Sternbach, so would hope that would count as cannon! User:Gluemyster : Unfortunately, it doesn't in the sense of canon being 'what appears on screen', which is in essence the policy we follow here at MA. The exact policy is still under discussion. It would be more accurate to put that information in Background information, as you have now done, for which I thank you. Oh, and just an FYI, it's canon, not cannon. -- DarkHorizon 06:24, 5 Feb 2004 (PST) Dark Horizon, "What is "canon" exactly? There exist different definitions of what can be regarded as canon. I always try to stick to the following, most common definition. Technically, canon is what TPTB pay attention to in the making of new Star Trek episodes. Everything that was shown in a previous episode has to be canon in this respect. After all, if someone/something can be seen on screen, it should not be allowed to deny their/its existence. Official publications by the Okudas, Rick Sternbach, Herman Zimmerman, Doug Drexler or other people directly involved in the production process may be as good as canon, since this is where the writers and producers look up the facts. Even if these books are supplemented with some information like dates or starship specs not mentioned in the show, this might be important to limit the room for speculation." This sounds to me like we are counting the TM's and other work by people that work on the show as cannon. Can you please clarify this for me? As far as seen-on-screen=cannon goes, the term Explorer was never stated on screen in any epesiode or film, yet it appears under starship classification? Gluemyster :You might want to check out Memory Alpha:Canon Policy as to what can be considered a valid resource to use in articles. Note that it says ''may be as good as canon, but they are not canon in the definition laid out by Paramount. We cannot treat them as canon, but we can consider them valid resources for inclusion in articles (although the exact validity is still under debate). :The policy is a little unclear, I agree, but we are in the process of refining it and moving it away from the idea of canon and non-canon in favour of saying what can and can't be used. -- DarkHorizon 23:31, 5 Feb 2004 (PST) Then I will hold off on any major editing and writing until it is worked out. There are severel sources that I would like to use. I hope it gets worked out so we can include this behind the scenes info, and a little speculation to fill in the gaps as far as the ships are concerned.Gluemyster